A Vienna Township manufacturer has taken a one-star Google review all the way to Trumbull County Common Pleas Court, accusing a Columbus woman of publishing false and malicious claims about its products. Starr Manufacturing, Inc. filed suit alleging that the March review contained fabricated statements about quality and manufacturing failures that supposedly affected multiple customers, and the company is now asking a jury to award more than $25,000 in damages.
According to WKRC, Starr Manufacturing says it has suffered expenses, significant reputational harm and special damages tied to the review. The company's complaint, detailed by the Tribune Chronicle, alleges the review remains active on Starr's Google Business Profile alongside 12 other public reviews the company has accumulated over the years.
The lawsuit raises two distinct legal theories, the Tribune Chronicle reports: defamation per se, which requires showing the reviewer acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, and defamation by implication, based on the claim that the review falsely suggested other customers experienced the same product defects. Starr is seeking a jury trial, along with attorney fees and litigation costs on top of the compensatory and punitive damages, per the WFMJ reporting cited in coverage of the case.
A History of Reviews Predating the Dispute
Court filings note that the Columbus woman has posted 11 Google reviews in total. Eight of those date back more than six years, and two others were posted roughly two years ago, leaving the March 2026 review as her most recent post about the company. Starr Manufacturing has drawn 13 Google reviews altogether over the past seven years, according to the same filings referenced by WKRC.
The company also alleges it filed suit out of concern the woman would continue posting and publishing what it calls false and malicious allegations on the internet, a worry attributed to the WFMJ reporting on the case. Starr Manufacturing is a Vienna Township business that received $450,000 in combined state and county development funding between 2007 and 2008 to expand its facility and retain 60 local jobs, a commitment that later earned it state development recognition in 2009, according to background compiled by Trumbull County government records.
Ohio's New Anti-SLAPP Law Could Shape the Case
The lawsuit lands just over a year after Ohio adopted its first statutory protections against lawsuits designed to punish public speech. Governor Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 237 into law, making Ohio the 35th state to enact the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, according to Harpst Becker. The law took effect April 9, 2025, under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2747, and before it existed, Ohio had no dedicated statutory shield for online commentators facing defamation claims.
Under the statute, a defendant sued over protected speech on a matter of public concern can file a motion for expedited dismissal within 60 days of being served, a move that automatically pauses court discovery and requires fee recovery for the defendant if the motion succeeds, per the Chandra Law Firm. Ohio trial courts began issuing dismissals and fee awards under the new framework in late 2025, giving defendants in cases like this one a real procedural option to test early.
The law is not a blanket shield, however. Harpst Becker notes that Ohio's anti-SLAPP statute explicitly exempts certain commercial lawsuits, including claims against someone primarily in the business of selling or leasing goods or services when the statement relates to that commercial enterprise. Courts are expected to weigh the content, form and context of a statement like Watson's review to determine whether it counts as a matter of public concern or a narrower commercial dispute exempt from the law's protections.
Where Ohio Courts Have Drawn the Line Before
Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals already tackled a similar question in September 2024, ruling that Google reviews containing false factual claims about fictitious customer interactions are actionable as defamation, while star-only ratings and subjective opinion statements remain protected First Amendment speech, according to Court News Ohio. That ruling overturned a trial court's dismissal of a separate lawsuit over fake reviews, giving Ohio businesses a precedent to point to when arguing that factual misstatements, rather than opinions, cross into defamation.
Federal law adds another layer to the picture. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 bars businesses from using standardized contract clauses that penalize customers for posting negative feedback, but it explicitly preserves a business's right to pursue civil defamation claims, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Separately, the FTC finalized a rule in August 2024 banning fake reviews and misrepresented customer experiences, backed by civil penalties reaching tens of thousands of dollars per violation, with the agency issuing its first public warning letters under that rule in late 2025.
The stakes behind disputes like this one are amplified by how heavily consumers now lean on reviews before making purchasing decisions. Ninety-seven percent of adult U.S. consumers rely on online reviews to guide their choices, with 41% saying they always read reviews before evaluating a business, according to BrightLocal survey data cited by NetReputation. That dynamic helps explain why a single one-star review, true or false, can carry outsized weight for a small manufacturer trying to protect its standing with future customers.
